Obama will visit the Kennedy Space Center on Thursday 04-15-10, outlining his plans for his so called "space plans." Man I hate to say goodbye to the shuttle program, its such a beautiful marvelous machine, so powerful, so awesome, I think I will cry and get so emotional when the last launch occurs this September. I dont agree with Obama not funding and canceling the Constellation program, its going to throw us into the back of the line as far as the space program goes. There is so much wasteful government spending in so many different areas in this country, that if I was the director of OMB (Office of Management & Budget) I would find so much money, that I can fund and keep the shuttle flying for another decade if not forever. Think about all the NASA workers and contractors that will be losing their jobs, were talking about tens of thousands of people getting laid off all across the country, mostly in Florida. Lets go to the Moon, Mars, and every else folks, lets keep NASA forever, its the best thing there is out there, without a doubt, ages 2 and up, great education, great fun, excitement, and everything else that puts a permanent smile on your face.

Quoting propilot83 (Thread starter):Lets go to the Moon, Mars, and every else folks, lets keep NASA forever, its the best thing there is out there, without a doubt, ages 2 and up, great education, great fun, excitement, and everything else that puts a permanent smile on your face.

NASA was never going away. It mission and role was being redfined. However, the latest plan might be more exciting for the casual observer.

"On Thursday, April 15, at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the President will outline a bold strategy for human spaceflight that increases the NASA budget by $6 billion over the next five years."

"This new plan:
• Advances America’s commitment to human spaceflight and exploration of the solar system, with a bold new vision and timetable for reaching new frontiers deeper in space.
• Increases NASA’s budget by $6 billion over 5 years.
• Leads to more than 2,500 additional jobs in Florida’s Kennedy Space Center area by 2012, as compared to the prior path.
• Begins major work on building a new heavy lift rocket sooner, with a commitment to decide in 2015 on the specific heavy-lift rocket that will take us deeper into space."

"This propulsion R&D effort will include development of a U.S. first-stage hydrocarbon engine for potential use in future heavy lift (and other) launch systems..."

Hydrocarbon engine? Sounds like a push back to the kerosene-fueled first stage à la Saturn V...presumably reviving the F-1A. Does anyone have more information on this? Is this more economical than the all-hydrogen concept for Ares V?

I guess his new plan is much better, go Obama, hopefully we will learn our lessons from the Constellation program and come up with something more cost efficient, eco friendly, and safe and secure for the people who will fly in them. Cool, lets be patient, and see what comes out of those clouds.

Quoting propilot83 (Reply 3):hopefully we will learn our lessons from the Constellation program and come up with something more cost efficient, eco friendly, and safe and secure for the people who will fly in them

In what way was Constellation not "cost efficient"? It was grossly underfunded for the stated mission, but that doesn't mean NASA was wasting the money.

In what way was Constellation not "eco friendly"? I don't understand what you are thinking at all. Biofuels?

As for "safe and secure", we have yet to see what standards private industry will be held to in designing and building a spacecraft to deliver astronauts to and from LEO. We have yet to see if they can deliver it at all, much less do so in a timely manner. What kind of loss rate might we expect from the Chevy or Dodge of space exploration?

If the heavy lift rocket is built (is it still to be called Ares V?) and if Orion is not stripped-down to the point that it no longer serves as the basis for a long-duration crew vehicle, then yes. I'm very pleased to see Ares V development being accelerated, but at the moment the intentions for Orion seem very fuzzy. "Unmanned crew rescue capsule"...WTF?

Folks I did not say that Constellation was not eco friendly, or cost efficient, safe, and secure. I in fact dont want private industry to try to send astronauts into space either. No one can do it better than NASA. I fully support NASA and love them like heck. I just got back from my vacation at the Kennedy Space Center a week ago. I had a blast there, very awesome. Anyway, its a good thing that NASA's budget has been increased, however I wish we had a vehicle to ferry astronauts to the ISS without having to pay the Russian's to do so, its kind of embarrassing you know, America paying another country to take us into space
Its like shame on "us."

Quoting eksath (Reply 1):NASA was never going away. It mission and role was being redfined. However, the latest plan might be more exciting for the casual observer.

NASA did have plans to fly back to the Moon and land men on Mars, believe it or not.

I was only mildly excited about constellation when it was announced, especially when called "apollo on steroids". That really turned me off. I was excited for Space Station Freedom in 1980 but each president has called for big programs but no money followed.

I would prefer that NASA buy spacecraft from different companies to build a fleet and not putting their eggs in one basket.
I would also like NASA to build one spacecraft that can be used to test propulsion and other types of systems.

People are afraid of the private sector doing this. But they get on planes every day! What if we didn't encourage this market and those companies went to Europe, China, Japan or other countries who are willing to buy space craft as someone else has already done much of the investing? What if Japan said, Okay we will not buy seats on Soyuz or Shuttle but will just buy Dragons for our own use. Then other countries could buy them as well. Then the cost of going to space drops big time. If Constellation had continued, NASA would still be planning while other countries would have just bought private spacecrafts.

The mercury days were all about testing basic systems and concepts...test piloting.

We need a new class or test pilot astronauts that are trained to just go up and do missions to test out these systems that NASA develops. That would be exciting.

Mercury, Gemini & Apollo were my parent's NASA. Shuttle is my NASA. What will my children's NASA look like? I don't want it looking like either one of those but more far reaching and frickin cool. I want it just a little closer to Star Trek canon and less like reliving history.

It would be good to go back to the moon if not anything but to continue learning about our nearest neighbor as well as learning how those things left behind have turned out. (see Apollo 12 mission)

Thing is...I want it done not in 3 days but a day or less. Mars is exciting. But imagine what it would be like.
We are all excited when we launch the rocket carrying the crew.
We are excited for the first day.
Then we forget because some hollywood type was drunk driving or dies.
Then we keep asking...what happened to the Mars mission?
It takes a year to get there....things stay popular today for about 3 months or less.
We have to get to Mars in less than 3 months or people will want the program cancelled.

It seems the Orion capsule is, at first, being redefined as this 'ISS lifeboat', probably as an insurance against any major problems with the prospective private ISS Taxi providers.
Like an Apollo capsule with an enhanced Command Module without, at first, the Service Module.
As well as retaining NASA's ability to design and build manned craft, the question being, what will loft this version of the spacecraft to ISS?
A modified existing launcher?

The references to not using existing propulsion of missions beyond LEO might well be about the work former Shuttle astronaut Chang-Diaz, who has been working on advanced propulsion systems with the eventual goal of making a trip to Mars in weeks, not months.

Drops big time relative to what, the Shuttle? No argument there, but the fact is private companies have no prospect of a commercial market outside of NASA and other government agencies. There is no private market other than joyriding millionaires, and hence the comparison to airplanes simply does not work.

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):It seems the Orion capsule is, at first, being redefined as this 'ISS lifeboat', probably as an insurance against any major problems with the prospective private ISS Taxi providers.
Like an Apollo capsule with an enhanced Command Module without, at first, the Service Module.
As well as retaining NASA's ability to design and build manned craft, the question being, what will loft this version of the spacecraft to ISS?
A modified existing launcher?

A full-up Orion, with service (fully fueled, etc.) and crew modules (uncrewed, but supplied), should be well within the capabilities of an Atlas V Heavy, or Delta IV Heavy to deliver to ISS. An Atlas 552 might just do the trick as well, although with zero room for additional weight growth for Orion or any real payload. OTOH, as a lifeboat, Orion probably could do with a substantially smaller service module. Note that a manned launch of an Orion would be heavier, since you'd need the escape system (and, of course, the crew).

That, of course, has been one of the big complaints about Ares I - it duplicates the lift that is already available off the shelf from the Atlas and Delta families. NASA's justification has been that it would be too hard to man-rate the Atlas* or Delta has always sounded a bit self-serving.

*You mean like they did during the Mercury program? Admittedly today’s man-rating standards are significantly higher.

rwessel, thanks, I had thought that this proposed 'Orion Lite' would be possible to launch on an existing system, being lighter than the previous Orion any extra weight 'man-rating' the rocket would be offset.

By randomly on 4/16/2010 8:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a link to an excellent summary of the NASA situation by Ed Crowley, the co-chair of the Augustine committee for evaluation of Human Space Flight. He clarifies the reality of the situation, the technological and economic limitations, and the proposed Flexible Path.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 10):NASA's justification has been that it would be too hard to man-rate the Atlas* or Delta has always sounded a bit self-serving.

I was also under the impression that NASA didn't want to man rate the Atlas, due to its use of the RD-180, which is a Russian designed engine. I think they were afraid that congress would pull the plug on funding when they found out we were going to use a non-American designed engine.

Quoting GDB (Reply 15):Just as well they did not have that attitude with all those Germans after WW2!

In all fairness, I think the political environment has changed significantly since WWII. Today, its all about how much money a congressperson can get in their district, not about the common good for the country.

Anyway, if these Russian designed motors are built in the US by a US company, which I gather they would be for inclusion in a major NASA manned program, what's the issue?
Apparently these motors, once intended for the abortive USSR lunar manned program, shocked many with how efficient they were.